Religious tolerance and multiculturalism

In many parts of the world multiculturalism is providing great gains in respects and tolerance.

quote:

---

"The problem arises when we are required to pretend, in the name of tolerance, that all religions are true.

​

This situation, where all religions are presumed true is dysfunctional and in the long term untenable.

​

Society cannot live with such a lie indefinitely."

---

Dr John Perkins.My question is open for all but I am particularly interested in the thoughts of the religious people on the forum. It is arguably easier for an athiest to answer.Do you believe the current method (multicuturalism, acting as if all faiths are correct) of dealing with religious freedom is effective?Do you see this working in the long term?My position on the topic -I cannot see multiculturalism working for religious difference. It is not possible to make laws taking into account all possible religious needs. A recent example can be seen here.http://www.heraldsun.com.au/.../story-fn7x8me2-1226078801032Here is a case of a Jehovah's Witness who died after refusing a blood transfusion. Doctors did not have the right to save a 15 year olds life.404Freedom of speech rights are being violated. Everyone will remember the Danish cartoon of the profit Muhammad. How do you incorporate Freedom of Expression laws into a society when that freedom of expression can get you killed?There are many debates on this website about what should be taught in schools. Evolution or Creation, Creation model one versus Creation Model 2 (or 3, 4, 5, 6 etc) How can it be possible to please everyone?Richard Dawkins documentary 'Faith School Menace' illustrates that multiculturalism is creating great separation of the people. The idea of multiculturalism was for all people to be able to live together. But it appears that multicultural ideas are helping people to live segregated in the same area.Scientific research in areas like cloning and stem cell research are being restricted or even banned for religious based reasons (among many other reasons of course)Multiculturalism has been very effective in regards to race, sexuality and to a lesser degree cultural differences. But multiculturalism seems to fail when it comes to religion (and the lack of religious belief, atheism).I do not believe that multiculturalism will work in the long term for this issue. I think it will lead to greater segregation of groups. I believe it will help to create greater division.Once people recognise this, we need to work together to come up with a better model. One that all people of all faiths can agree with. Even if that does mean fully separating groups. When my kids fight, I separate them. Sometimes they cannot get along. I am aware that this is a gross oversimplification of the issue. And I do not mean apartheid like separation. I mean an equal voluntary separation. It probably wont work and I am sure that many people will be able to point out problems but it is the only thing that comes to mind. I am open to suggestion...Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : clarifyingEdited by Butterflytyrant, : adding my position on the topic

I have edited the post.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Hello Caffeine,

quote:

---

And the problem with phrasing the problem this way, of course, is that no such problem exists. Accepting that people have the right to live their lives the way they want to until they start harming others does not require accepting the truth of their beliefs.

---

No problem exists? You cant think of any issues in your society that are causing tension between religious groups?The reason I asked the question was because there is harm being done. I am totally happy with people believing anything they want. No problem with that at all. Until it does start to cause harm. Many people on this very forum argue that teaching children evolution or creation (depending on their position) is harming their children.My local shopping centres cannot put up standard christmas decorations as it is a concern that they will offend people who are not Christian. The shopping centres must pretend that all peoples beliefs are true by following each groups rules. All of the decorations are now non demoninational. No great harm here to me but to the large Christian population probably misses the manger scenes.Religious groups threaten pro choice groups. I have witnessed religious people threatening and abusing women entering a family planning clinic where abortions are performed.I believe that it should be everyones right to burn my nations flag in protest. Take a copy of On the Origin of the Species and throw it in the mud. Wipe their arse with a picture of my mum. Everyone has freedom of expression. But what happens if I want to wipe my arse with a page of the Koran? Protest actions are supposed to be offensive. I recognise the right of freedom of expression as it may offend but not hurt anyone. An artist painted a picture of Jesus in urine called the Piss Christ. There was protest, and the show was cut short. Fair enough. But there were no killings, the artist was not threatened with assasination by international group. The issue of Halal slaughtering is fairly big here at the moment. Many people, including myself believe that killing a beast by the Halal method is unneccesary torture of the beast. But, as we have to act as if everyones religion is true, we have to continue to allow this torture.I am not blaming multiculturalism at all. Australia is a multicultural country. It has been a wonderful way for many different nationalities to come here and exist together. I think it has been a admirable model for culturally deverse societies. What I am saying is that the idea of multiculturalism will not work when it comes to religious differences. It is not possible for everyones religious beliefs to be catered for as if they were all true. I am also not blaming religion. It is no rleigions 'fault' that they have the beliefs that they do. It is no religious persons fault that they believe what they do. I would like every person to be able to believe whatever they want and practice whatever system of religion they believe without it having an impact on anyone else. What I am trying to establish is if there is a way anyone can think of that all religions would be able to live together peacefully and happily without religious conflict. The current model is multiculturalism, but it is not working.

quote:

---

Laws do not take into account every religious need - nor do they attempt to. It's not possible to practice a religion which requires you to violate some fundamental standard of the community

---

In Australia we have anti discrimination laws. One very important part of the anti discrimination act is that everyone is treated equally regardless of religion (as well as age, sex etc). This is a law seems like a good way to go. There was a recent issue with it. A Sikh was refused entry into a bar because he was wearing a turban. The hotel has a strict no hat policy and this policy is for all guests, regardless of religion, race, sex etc. The property acted in accordance with the current anti discrimination laws. I would be the first to agree that this is a pretty extreme example. But to allow the guest in would actually breach the anti discrimination law.link to story - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/.../story-e6frfhk6-1226087203597In Canada in 1993, 5 Sikh war veterans were told they would have to remove their turbans at a memorial because wearing hats was seen as a sign of great disrespect to the dead.link to article - http://www.sikhs.org/100th/part5a.htmlThe second example is an practicing a religion which requires you to break a fundamental standard of the community. Head covering of all types are not a standard of my community but Muslims and Sikhs are required to wear them. One of the links in my first post showed how a Muslim woman was able to create a loophole in the Australian legal system because of her protected right to wear a burqa.I know my solution would not work. I freely admitted that and advised that this is the solution I have for my fighting children. I admitted that many people would be able to see prolems with the issue. The reason I asked the question was to see if there was a way anyone could think of that all of the religious (and non religious) groups could live happily.defs of multiculturalism.

quote:

---

The ideal of multiculturalism is the respect for different ethnic, cultural and religious groups in society.

---

quote:

---

Multiculturalism is the appreciation, acceptance or promotion of multiple cultures, applied to the demographic make-up of a specific place, usually at the organizational level, e.g. schools, businesses, neighborhoods, cities or nations.

​

In a political context it has come to mean the advocacy of extending equitable status to distinct ethnic and religious groups without promoting any specific ethnic, religious, and/or cultural community values as central.[1][2] Multiculturalism as "cultural mosaic" is often contrasted with the concepts assimilationism and social integration and has been described as a "salad bowl" rather than a "melting pot.

---

Wikipedia

Hey Jar,The problem is that religious groups do not have the right to threaten pro choice groups. Particularly if they have reached their position of protest because of religious teachings not shared by the pro choice group. Noone has the 'right' to threaten anyone. I am unaware of any legal system where a civilian group has the right to threaten another civilian group into changing their behaviour. Police and government groups can threaten legal action and punishment for committing crimes but they cannot threaten a group because they have a personal disagreement.With regards to the Koran burning. I agree that I have the right to burn the Koran. I would not as I believe that it would be pointless and inflammatory. I agree that people who I would offend by burning this book have the right to protest my behaviour if I do offend them. This is everyones right. What I disagree with is the fact that some Islamic people feel they have the right, the obligation even, to perform violent acts on people who offend them. Even when they live in a country where the right to offend them is legal. Even when the manner by which they were offended is an act that is normal and not offensive in the society they are in.An example of this can be the South Park threats after they showed an image of Muhammad. This TV shows Jesus in many episodes. It is a normal, acceptable and legal thing for them to do, even if it does offend some people. They have the right to show any person they want on their show. Religious people can be offended. That is their right. They do not have the right to threaten anyone. There is a difference between being offended and protesting and the belief that you have the right to threaten and carry out threats because you are offended.Revolutionmuslim.com had this to say to the Southpark creators -

quote:

---

"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

​

(from the article) Theo van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by an Islamic extremist in 2004 after making a short documentary on violence against women in some Islamic societies. The posting on Revolutionmuslim.com features a graphic photograph of Van Gogh with his throat cut and a dagger in his chest.

---

source - Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access DeniedImagine if an athiest decided that they had the right to threaten a creationist with physical violence, intimidate them and issue an order to all other athiests to do violence to an individual because they burned a copy of Oliver Twist.

Hey Jar,I am not familiar with the legal system in the states.In Australia it is illegal to threaten someone with violence for the purposes of causing fear. It is illegal to threaten someone with the intent to intimidate them into following your instructions.In australia, noone has the right to intimidate anyone with the threat of violence.It is called unlawful threatening.

quote:

---

Under section 19(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) a person is guilty of an offence if they threaten to kill or endanger someone’s life, intending to arouse fear. A person will be guilty of an offence even if they were recklessly indifferent to the fear they arouse. Under the same section, a person will be guilty of an offence if they threaten to cause harm to another with the intention of arousing fear. A person will still be guilty if they were recklessly indifferent to the arousal of fear.

​

Recklessly indifferent means you didn’t intend to make someone fearful, but you should have realised that fear was likely to occur.

---

I did not know it was legal to intimidate someone into doing what you want them to do in the USA.Have i misunderstood that this is a protected right there? Edited by Butterflytyrant, : typo

Frako,You are a cunning bastard.I believe you have proven my point in a most unexpected way.It would seem that the three great monotheistic religions are breaking the law.It is probably one of the greatest acts of intimidation of all time. And these threats are made to children.For some reason this act seems to be acceptable by the masses.Why does religion get a free hand to act outside the law?I wonder if it would work?I may start a thread...or you can as I dont want to steal the idea.

As a hat wearing man myself (I wear a fedora) I think that the no hat rule is silly for 2 reasons.1. What possible harm can come from a hat. I could understand a no ninja star rule or a no pet bear rule.2. men with manners remove their hats when they go inside anyway.I would pay to have a beagle with a bowler like development.seriously for a sec though, with that story, I was merely pointing out where laws that are designed to be as fair as possible to all people can fall down. The antidiscrimination laws were supposed to protect people like the Sikh, allowing him all freedoms given to any other citizen without question. Unfortunately, the law designed to treat everyone equally bit him in the arse.

Hello GDR,I have read similar quotes before. I do agree that there are textx in the faiths that advise that everyone should get along.My point is that this is not what is happening. People, are not following these teachings. Multicuralism is the current method of helping people to get along. I know it is not working. You have shown one of the big reasons why it is not working. Then you put forward this as a solution. There are two problems with this solution.The first and the biggest is that many people interpret the teneants of their faith differently to you. They believe that you have the wrong idea and they are doing the right thing.The second is that this issue is not just about peace. Many of the examples I have used are not related to conflict. All side cannot act as if their version of events is the true version of events without havinbg some difficulties. There will always be problems.Dont get me wrong, a world where all religions were working towards peace would be great, but even if they were not fighting, there would still be issues where both side would never agree. Some examples would include circumcision, halal butchering, burqas, arranged marriage, blood transfusions, pro life/pro choice, freedom od speech etc etc etcDo you think the current model, multiculturalism will work in light of the problems you have outlined?Do you have a practical alternative?I dont have a practical alternative but I think we need to start thinking of one.

Given the recent events in Norway, has anyone changed their opinions or are there any new opinions on this topic?

unfortunately this is not true. We do pretend their behavior is ok and we respond to it in the way they demand. Your example of the cartoons is the perfect example. In most of the world, nearly every newspaper, magazine and TV station self censored the cartoons. They gave up their right to freedom of speech. They gave up their right to parody a figure. An act that is acceptable in their own culture and society. They gave this right up in order to appease an aggresive group.I believe that what should have happened is that every newspaper and magazine and every TV station should have shown the cartoons in an act of solidarity. They should have done what is acceptable to them in their own countries because they need to show what they stand for. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression is one of the greatest rights we have.I am not saying we should go to other countries where freedom of speech and freedom of expression are not accepted and force them to display the cartoons. This would be wrong. We should not force them to do anything or accept our ideals. What I am saying is that in the countries where showing a parody or cartoon is legally, culturally and socially acceptable, they should have shown this.I do not see why any nation should stop doing something they see as acceptable because another group says they should not.If the people from Belgium (country chosen at random) want to run through the streets naked covered in peanut butter on their condiment holy day, they should be able to do that. If I found it unacceptable (I know a Belgian guy who is quite a large hairy man), I would not feel it is my right, as an outsider going in, to tell them to stop the Peanut butter nudie run.I do not believe that it is acceptable that one group entering into an established society with developed legal, cultural and social norms can tell that society they can no longer practice and act acceptable to those norms (particularly with the threat of violence).As to the Norway incident. This is a piece I wrote on another website the day after the shootings.This individual was a troubled man. This much is undeniable. However, he was not insane. I would even say he was not mentally ill. From the planning, choice of victims, method of execution and his writings, I would say his is as sane as most people. Ordinary sane people kill other individuals on a daily basis. Some do it as a career in the military. All you need to have to kill people is a personally acceptable motive. This mans motive is quite clear. Firstly, one needs to remove Christianity from the equation. This man may have been a Christian, and from what I have read he was, but this is not his motivation. He was not using any Christian ideologies directly in this event. I believe he is intelligent enough to be aware that he would not recieve any support from Christian groups or individuals for pressing a Christian message upon people in such a manner. While there are Christian extremists active in many parts of the world, it is difficult for them to use their faith to justify violent actions. The people who are saying he is not a true Christian are missing the point of his message. His Christianity had about as much to do with this as his tastes in music (classical and trance for those interested).The targets —
Since 1935, the Labour Party has been in power in Norway for all but 16 years. They have been the dominant power. They are a social democratic party. They support multiculturalism and are progressive and liberal. Breiviks anti markist leanings would go strongly against this type of government. The victims were at a Labour Party Camp. He would have seen them as the next geneneration of Labour figureheads. The choice of these individuals, rather than the Islamic people is an important point. He chose to attack the party who he blamed for the problem.The method —
It takes a certain something I dont have a word for it, to shoot people at close range. A bomber can detinate the device from a safe place away from the blood and the screaming. Breivik would have been able to exceed the current death toll with carefully placed bombs. But he did not. The manner of the act is telling. He chose to shoot children and young adults. He chose to look into the frightened eyes of young people and execute them. This shows how badly he wanted his message to hit home. Anyone can create terror. It is not even very difficult. But not everyone can create the horror that this man has. He would have been well aware of the significance of his choice and method when he planned the attacks.Analysis —
I would say that Breivik is an extremely proud man. I would say he is proud of his heritage, proud of his people and proud of his nation. It is this pride that leads to the act. He would see, every day, the decay of his society. The dilution of his culture. The economic situation as well as problems not related to Islam would cause him trouble. However, it would be the non intergration of Islamic people that would become his target. He would see the failure of multiculturalism as the problem. He would rant and rave on chat forums and in his manifesto about the problem but noone would listen. He would probably find a great many people who agreed with his position. He would wonder who was to blame for the problem of Islamic tension in his home country. The reson he chose not to target Muslims is that he knew it would make little differnce. It may even hurt his cause. The knee jerk reaction of sympathy and political correctness after a muslim massacre would not have the desired effect. He would need to target those he saw as responsible. Like a child who has been let down by their parent, he chose to target the governing power of his nation. He sees his nation being taken apart by multiculturalism and decided to take his anger out on those he saw as responsible.In all conflict, all parties eventually reduce themselves to the lowest acts of any individual group. To not do so puts the reluctant at a disadvantage. This can be seen in all major wars throughout history. He saw the tactics of his enemies. He chose to use the tactic of terror to send his message. Perhaps he thought that violence between Islam and the West was inevitable. Rising tensions in many nations with the spread of Islam show this is true. This is not the fault of the average muslim. It is not even the fault of most muslims. It is not possible for all people with very different ideologies to intergrate. Someone has to change. Bievik did not want to change. He did not want his country to change. This is the reason for this act. He saw an invader and did not want to change. This is not an uncommon feeling. His act is deplorable. But do not cast this man out as a madman. Do not take solice that he was insane. Do not fall back on the weak belief that he was a Christian fundamentalist acting for his God. This event will not be the last of its type. We need to look to the big issue. Multiculturalism is failing. We, as rational people, need to work out a method that is acceptable for all side of the equation. Many social experiments have failed. We need to try something new to prevent further disasters. Killing each other is not going to succeed. But it certainly gets attention. We cant save the lost lives. But we can work to prevent future losses. Beiviks message was clear.

Sorry Cafiene,I forgot to reply to the second part of your reply. That is what multiculturalism is. This is how it is practiced. Everyone must cater for the beliefs of others as if they were true. In my part of the world, we have to accept Ramadan as a reason to put Islamic workers onto light duties as if their religion is true. I dont believe them but other workers have to take up the slack even though they do not share the Islamic workers religious beliefs. I do not mean that we have to believe that all of the groups versions of truth. We have to cater to each group as if they were true. Each group tells us what they can and cannot do according to their religious beliefs and we have to cater to those beliefs. The conflict comes when a group tells us what we can and cannot do according to their religious beliefs.

Hello Panda, I dont think it is a lack of pride in most people. Just a stronger sense of humbleness and humanity in people. You can be both proud and humble at the same time. This man lacked humanity. There is a coldness and ruthlessness about him that aloowed this manifestation of his pride. I am proud of my country too, but my pride is tempered by sufficient respect for my fellow man not to kill someone if they do something that I feel is bad for my country. I disgagree with many of my countries environmental laws and I feel they are damaging my country and this hurts me. But there are better ways of making ones voice heard. maybe not as explosively as this mans voice. But the horror of his act will overshadow any ideology he wishes to put forward as his reason. I think madness is too easy. I think it would be too easy to just say he was crazy. I could not find a word because I think that the english language does not yet have a word to properly describe it. All of the words I thought of, including madness were insufficient. I could not come up with a word that was strong enough. I dont think madness cuts it. I also dont think he was crazy. Any more than any soldier is crazy when they kill someone on a battlefield. That seems to be what he thought he was. This particular delusion may fit into the mental illness catagory as he certainly was not in a war as we see it. But in his eyes, he was a soldier. He is more than probably more than just mad. He seemed to hate liberal politics, marxism and political correctness above all else. He did not seem to hate the individual Islamic people themselves. He hated the form of government that allowed the problems that he was seeing. While there is a lot of anti Islamic sentiment in his ravings, he hates the people who have 'allowed' the things he disgrees with to effect his life. Those children were the best and brightest of the political system that he sees as responsible for the things he hates about the world around him. What was he after? He wanted someone to listen to him. From what I have read he was active in a number of far right web groups. He has been removed from some because of his extreme views. He left one because he thought that they were not extreme enough. He seems to be a loner. I doubt he thought people understood him. Which is not really surprising considering the nature of his views. I would say that he has been screaming for a long time and noone has been listening. If there can be a positive outcome to this it will be that intelligence groups will monitor the type of web groups he was in to try to spot people like this before they have the capabiltiy to do anything like this again. Hopefully they will be able to learn from him as they do from all killer, how to better spot people who could become a danger to others.As to inconsistancies and randomness. I would need you to point out what you mean. This guy was anything but random. He operated a small farming business for 3 years in order to purchase the fertiliser in sufficient quantity to make his bomb without arousing suspicion. I beliece he was so dangerous because he was not random or inconsistant.

Hello Caffeine,I poorly phrased the sentence where I said that we pretend their behavious is ok. What I was trying to get at is that many publishing outlets, nealry all in the USA, New Zealand and Australia as well as many in Europe self cencored in order to avoid negative publicity and violence. There were attacks planned and even carried out into 2010 on the newspaper and the cartoonists (the cartoonist survived by hiding in a panic room while police shot the axe wielding assailant). There are people who think that this behavious is acceptable. Those people are the people who were waving the banners, screaming for blood, the people who planned attacks on the newspapers, boycotted Danish companies and proclaimed their right to murder. These people thought that this was acceptable. This may be fine in their country. But it is not acceptable in the countries they were in. There is a disctict problem with any ideology that allows you to belive you have the right to hust another human being. Particulalry if that human being is doing something that is socially and culturally acceptable in the country he is doing it. No, that it is not what I said at all. To say society is failing is a very broad brushstroke. I said that multiculturalism in its current form, when applied to this set of issues is failing. I belive that this is true. I was not convinced of this because of one mans acts.Deranged psychopath may be an accurate description. But it will take a fair bit of professional work to establish that. He does generally fit the profile of a psychopath given his history. I would not jump to the easy diagnosis of mental illness so quickly though. I think it goes deeper for this particular man. I think you misunderstand me again.How do you accept someones beliefs as important to them?You act as if they are true.It does not mean I accept them, or believe them, but I have to act in the same manner that I would if I believed them to be true.Someone says that his religious beliefs say thet he has to wear a yellow shirt on Wednesdays. Our uniform is blue. In order to accept that these beliefs are important to this man, I have to allow him to wear his yellow shirt on Wedesdays. I have to act as i would as if this mans beliefs were true.Using your words - "You are not accepting these peoples beliefs as true. You're accepting them as important to these people. It's not the same thing at all."Given the yellow shirt scenario above, how would the two things you say are not the same thing pan out differently.As for the Ramadan thing. It is not a law as yet. However, a Ramadan paper was circulated through the federal government area my partner works in advising that all Islamic employees would not be able to eat during daylight hours. They were told to expect problems with certain tasks and some tasks would have to be allocated to other non Islamic staff as they would not be eating all day. The same goes for my company, additional tasks have been allocated to some staff in production in roles they do not normally perform to take up the slack for staff who have been issued lighter duries because they have advised they will be fasting during daylight hours. We cant just say that we dont believe in their religion so we are not recognising this problem for them. We have to act as if their religion were true and make allowances.

Hey Jar,There would be a number of things they could do.I would say investigate if the person has access to weapons or bomb making material.Investigate any suspicious activity. eg scouting a particular location known to be used by the opposing groups, making large financial transactions for strange reasons etcLaw enforcement groups uncover terror cells and prevent attacks on a fairly regular basis.

Hello Panda,I would say that pride was the underpinning trait that lead him to his particular ideologies. Lack of humanity lead him to commit the act.A soldier can kill an enemy combatant and justify this to himself. A fighter pilot who shoots a missile into a building would know that they are killing people who are not a direct threat. Snipers kill people from a great distance without that person even knowing they are there. There are a lot of examples of killing people that are not in a battlefield life or death situation. The soldier just needs to justify his actions to be able to do it. This man saw his enemies and saw himself as a soldier. He does feel guilty about his acts. He has said they were "atrocious but necessary". He has also stated recently that "He wanted to hurt the Labour party and halt its recruitment in the worst possible way, referring to party members as marxists."
(link - Redirecting) Essentially yes. He was attempting to hurt the group that he saw as most dangerous to his ideologies. He said he wanted "to give the Labour party a warning that 'doomsday would be imminent' unless the party changed its policies"It seems he did not blame the Islamic people for the problem he saw. He blamed the Labour government.I also strongly agree with your comments regarding the media and publicity. I was more referring to law enforcement groups learning from him. But your point is still a good one. The internet, Facebook and Twitter etc are very easy ways to find other people who share or at least support your ideologies. The media also inflates problems in order to sell papers. Some of the pressures that he felt were no doubt put into his head my media groups. And there would be individuals who support his ideology who are following this story with great interest.Sometimes it is a fine line between discussing controversial ideologies in order to get them out into the open so everyone is aware of a danger and blowing something out of proportian to make a buck.